Without a doubt, this is a Quentin Tarantino film: it contains his trademark gratuitous violence; his realism that borders on the comic (comic realism); a cameo; and his knack for telling a story. There's a lot of violence in the movie, and most of it is excessive to the point of being ridiculous. One example is when slave-master Candie's sister is blown away. She is literally blown away! (Man, they had some powerful pre-assault weapons back then.) As in previous movies, Tarantino shows the pangs of dying, which smack of realism, since we are so accustom to instantaneous deaths. He lets us hear the moans and groans, and see the tangled gyrations of the dying. The scene where the pre-Klansmen start to argue is comic but also something that could happen when you get a group of people together. Although the scene makes these terrorists look imbecilic, at the same time it humanizes them; it lessens their violent intent, as their human frailties are emphasized, and this can evoke identification or worse, sympathy. The opening scene with enslaved Afrikans walking is another instance of comic realism: the Afrikans are walking, hobbling, even hopping, as they should be after trekking for miles. We've never seen a bunch of bad walking brothers like this, and I don't mean the good bad either. But then again, it was 37 miles.

Before I discuss what I think Tarantino did well and what he didn't do so well, I'd like to address his use of the N-word. You know, nigger! If your only reference to movies about slavery is the made-for-television Root series, then it's no wonder you thought his use of the word was over the top. If you've seen Mandingo or Goodbye, Uncle Tom, then you would realize its use was appropriate. Furthermore, history supports its usage, and this was one of the few historical accuracies in the movie. It was the most common term used to address our people, used by both the free and the enslaved. If a black producer-director had made this movie and left out the word, he'd be guilty of sugarcoating our history. Yes, nigger is an ugly word but it was the word of choice then. And it has made a comeback! I don’t like hearing the word, but if it offends you, then you better not listen to hip-hop or eavesdrop on a typical conversation of young people.

Stephen. the real villain

What Tarantino did wellTarantino shows the stark contrast between the southern Bourbons and poor white trash. We see some trashy white folks too, especially that hilarious character Mr. Stonesipher, who simply mangles the English language. Tarantino extends this class contrast into slave society, offering a glimpse of house slavery and field slavery. And didn't he give us a head-nigger-in-charge Uncle Tom "house slave" par excellence in the character of Stephen! (I'll have more to say about him later.) Through this character and others we are given a small window into the mores of the enslaved. Though Tarantino displays the depravity, even the sexual depravity of slavery, for example the common practice of castrating or disfiguring the Afrikan male's genitalia, or the slave prostitution of Big Daddy's plantation, to his credit there is not one rape scene, which is often a staple in movies about slavery, even a Roots. Additionally absent from the movie was the usual sexual titillation or sexual undercurrent that's commonplace in the cinema.

Aside from the brief whipping flashbacks, the movie does not show Afrikan women being brutalized. Which bring me to the question of the brutality of slavery, and how well was it presented. The level of brutality varied from plantation to plantation during slavery, nevertheless, it was endemic to the system. Brutality and dehumanization were the necessary evils needed to maintain the system. Tarantino is actually moderate in his display of slavery's brutality. He gives us the whipping flashbacks, the dogs attacking the Mandingo, the Mandingo fight, and the near castration of Django—that's basically it. If you want to see the dark side of slavery, see Goodbye, Uncle Tom. Or just read some history.

Stephen and Broomhilda

There is some character development with Django, which is necessary for the credibility of the film. You can't be Kunta Kinte one minute then jump out and be Fred Williamson or Jim Kelly, the next. A memorable scene for me was when Dr. King Schultz was telling Django the story of Broomhilda. We witness the child-likeness of Django, the slave. But at the same time, this was a link to his Afrikan past, where storytelling is an important cultural element. We see Django confronted with a moral dilemma when he has to kill a bounty in the presence of the bounty's son. He learns that being a good bounty hunter requires an emotional disconnect. He trains in the mountains and through diligence, he develops what appears to be an innate ability--He becomes an excellent marksman. The character development of Django was fairly even until he escapes from the miners at which point he becomes more blaxploitation-like. To Tarantino's credit, the film was only vaguely reminiscent of a spaghetti Western. Yeah, there was a song or two that sounded spaghetti Westernish, the amazing gun-fighting, and the zoom-in camera effect, but overall, I didn't leave the movie thinking I had seen a black spoof on the Good, Bad, and the Ugly.

Master Candie

What Tarantino did not do wellThere was little or poor character development of Broomhilda. She reminded me more of a European damsel in distress, than a strong or even resilient enslaved Afrikan woman, albeit she was a house slave. She seemed frail, and this was reflected in her fainting. The couple embracing, a silent cry, or maybe even an “Oh, Jesus” would have been more dignified. Instead we get a weak, almost contrived faint. I also think Tarantino failed to be believable at a crucial point in the movie. The story is fantasy, as many movies are, so that's not the problem. But there are still points of credulity needed no matter how unrealistic a film might be. For me, when Django surrendered, that should have been the end of the movie because, pardon my language, but they should have shot that nigger right then! I would have. You can't be that badass and I let you live to do some more fantastic, miraculous shooting, stupendous feats, and who knows what other shat he had up his sleeve. That nigger has got to die now. And then, rather than publicly torture him in front of the entire nation if possible, especially for such an egregious taking of white life, it was decided to let him live so he dies of hard labor in a mining camp. Though known for its brutality, we didn't know the mine was headed by more imbeciles. Django escapes, and now we see Django on steroids. Another area I felt Tarantino kind of missed his mark, was the music. It was good but perhaps too eclectic a blend. At one moment you are listening to a spaghetti Western tune, then gangster rap. I enjoyed it, I'm just saying, spaghetti Western music followed by hip-hop?

The Other MovieFrom the movie's trailer, I thought it was going to be a blend between Django and Addio Zio Tom (Goodbye, Uncle Tom), the Italian pseudo-documentary about Afrikan enslavement in antebellum America. Seeing the film confirmed my initial assessment, to which now I would add Blazing Saddles, Mandingo, and Rosewood to the mix. Tarantino, the movie buff turned successful producer-director, has the ability to take bits and pieces from movies, add a new story line and come up with a masterpiece. Django Unchained is no masterpiece, but it is a very entertaining movie with a special twist: it has an avenging and triumphant fugitive slave protagonist, an unfathomable combination in the cinema. Django Unchained is also a love story, one based on revenge no less. It is truly uncommon to see a “slave” love story. The movie gave us some memorable characters and performances. But most important, like Rosewood—we saw a black hero. We saw a people, always the victim, being victorious, and we love and need more of that. But hold it a second. Every movie is actually two movies—the one you see and the one you don't see--the exoteric movie and the esoteric (subliminal) one.

Django

And no good movie review is without an interpretation of the movie's symbolism or subliminal message. So, let's get started analyzing the movie. Who is Dr. Schultz? Was he Jewish? If so, then once again we have a movie where a Jew is the friend of the black man, his only friend. This is a common theme and misconception in black history--that the Jew has always befriended and worked on the side of righteousness and liberalism; when the reality is that Jews were on both side, friends and foes, for and against slavery. Like Django, there is some character development with Dr. Schultz. We see his become more than just a bounty hunter but a person that begins to identify with the enslaved (his nagging flashbacks). His death helps to make Django the true hero, and makes Schultz less of the White Savior, and more of a sacrificial victim; a person ennobled by his or her willingness to die for a worthy cause. In contrast, we have Stephen's character, who we assume is a house slave. (Malcolm told us about house slaves; it's just that we were not ready for Stephen.) However, making matter worse, Stephen is not a slave (Candie tells us he freed him). He does what he does of him own volition. Consequently, he is an ultra villain, who in the end is worst than the master himself. One can only imagine that if he was a master, and in many ways, he was the master of the master, he would have been worst than a white master. Stephen is not your typical house slave, one that is loyal to his master yet shares some sympathies with the field or other slaves. He was not simply an ignorant, cowering slave, or one that seemed protective of his privilege. He was just evil, with a capital E! Master Candie was evil too, but we almost expect him to be. Also we know he had an excuse, he's deranged, so we forgive him, sort of. But we cannot forgive Stephen, and we must ask, “What is his hatred of his people based on? It is a self-hatred indoctrinated through slavery.

Dr. Schultz, Bounty Hunter

In many ways Stephen's character lets the master or the white man off the hook. In actuality, Django Unchained is a film where both the protagonist and antagonist are black. And this too, is rare, if not unheard of for a movie about slavery! Stephen, not master Candie, is the real villain. Even the fact that the master's house, a symbol of the slavocracy, and Stephen, meet their demise at the same time suggest that he is the real power on the plantation; that these two dichotomies are one. Thus, while we are impressed with Jackson's performance, this message is being imprinted in our consciousness. And, this message is a distortion of history. Django, as protagonist, is his counterbalance. The problem is there were actual slaves that were like Stephen or approximated him, while there were no Djangos. Stephen was and is real, Django is not! But even the Django we see is limited in his development, especially if we are to consider his a true hero. To his discredit, Django never becomes a freedom fighter but remains an individual on a personal mission. He kills white people not because he wants to free our people or end slavery, but because his woman is still enslaved. (Loving your woman is a noble devotion, but somehow, loving your race seems even nobler.) He is disconnected from his people. Even in the end when he escapes from the mining company, he never gives words of encouragement to the enslaved, all we get is the one slave that gives a faint smile of admiration, as if saying “I see you” or “right on brother.” From Django we get nothing.

On the surface the movie is quite benign: it is entertaining, well-acted, has eclectic music, good cinematography, and a number of other noteworthy elements; but subliminally, the movie is sinister: it offers an entirely different message, a message that absolves white responsibility and even blame for Afrikan enslavement. (Those black slavers and house niggers did us in, and by extension Afrikan kings.) It offers us a Jewish sacrificial victim, a master who's controlled by his clever darky, and a violent blood lusting nigger with a gun, and who knows how to use it. Damn. I’m scared of him just writing this. So, which movie did you see?

PS: Oh, and to respond to Spike Lee's comments, no, the movie did not dishonor our ancestors, no movies can. We dishonor our ancestors when we trivialize them, and most of all when we forget them.

Seba Damani, you said a lot here. I commend you for laying it out well. I just would like to touch the fact that there were two stories in this one story. You had Django (protagonist) or Stephen (Antagonist), but I would have liked you to expand on the white psycho drama in the movie, which was powerful Candie (Antagonist) and Dr. Schultz (Protagonist). Dr. Schultz shot and killed white men who brought upon injustice to society. How about that last scene when even after the signing of the document was done, Dr. Schultz succumbed to his own death because he refused to shake a white southerners hand. Wow! We should not minimize that scene either. Now here is the kicker, Schultz is a German Jew.

Reply

Seba Damani

12/31/2012 03:52:09 pm

Yes, there is a dynamics going on between the two white men, but it is in fact secondary to the dynamics between Django and Stephen.

Reply

Seba (aka director) Harris

12/31/2012 12:01:16 pm

You write in regards to Stephen:“What is his hatred of his people based on? It is a self-hatred indoctrinated through slavery.

How about him not wanting to lose what he believes he has. He is powerful. Next to Candie he is the ruler of the plantation. NOt only that, he has access to the money. The very first scene when he is introduced in the picture, he is stamping the check. It's not necessarily a self hatred more than a man of power refusing to relinquish it. It is like the Republicans feeling the republic is falling because Obama is in the white house. They will stop at nothing to keep the republic in tact.

Reply

Seba

12/31/2012 03:50:03 pm

Even with Candie Stephen's power is real; he held sway over the plantation. When Candie brought the skull of Ben, Stephen's father, out and praised Ben, it was tantamount to "ancestor" worship. Candie worships his slave handlers. And Stephen does demonstrate self-hatred because he goes the extra mile; why did he have to tell Django he was going to die in the harsh mines from brutally being overworked. That was rubbing it in; it was venomous, and that's more than just protecting one's position.

Reply

Sheba Gass

1/1/2013 07:33:16 am

Seba Damani, your analysis is right on. I think the director did an excellent job with the house nigger role that Sameul L. Jackson played. It was done so well, that I cheered for his death. Jackson should earn an Oscar if he was acting. Damn! He was good. On another note, why didn't Django release the brothers in the end? He left them in chains to likely did or get captured by others.

Reply

Seba Damani

1/1/2013 02:07:29 pm

That was a point I made: Django is not fighting against slavery; he is no Nat Turner but simply a man who wants to free his wife and avenge those who may have harmed her.

Reply

Seba Gass

1/1/2013 07:35:10 am

Seba Gass...Sheba Gass is my younger sister.

Reply

Seba (aka Director) Harris

1/1/2013 07:57:24 am

But, isn't that the whole idea of redirection. All the focus is on the obvious. But, that needs to be examined closely. What subliminal suggestion did it have. Let's ask your followers, did anyone anticipate Dr. Schultz suicide?

Reply

Seba Harris

1/1/2013 08:07:04 am

I am sure we all had felt that an execution wasn't a harsh enough punishment than a slowly, maiming and tortuous death for folks. Example, Newtown, Connecticut.

Reply

David

4/4/2013 04:16:02 am

Although I was rather late at watching the movie, I really have to applaud the great work done by Tarantino. The cast chosen for the set were excellent. I loved the acting of Dr. Schultz in particular. His death was quite unexpected, I never understood why he had to make the handshake such a big deal. All in all. This is one of those movies which kept me thrilled, only noting at the end that I had been watching it for a whole 2:45 minutes.

Reply

Ephantus Kimani Muhia

9/3/2013 06:16:37 am

Seba, I had watched the movie before but had to watch again after reading your analysis. You are on point in the analysis and truth be told, this is one of the best movies. Samuel L Jackson is of course my favourite and he always does it for me. Wish you would analyse more movies before we get to watch them. You have really expanded on the plot so clearly which makes it easy to watch the movie and understand it so well.